Theistic Evolution - Insight & Answers

[Moridin]

Moridin, I don't see why special should be taken to mean biologically special.

Our genome is around 98% identical to chimps and we consist of the same basic molecular building blocks as all other living organisms. Ergo, we are not biologically special compared to other species.

I'm not saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative, but that it holds in my own relative belief system. This is self consistent for a relativist, but not for an absolutist. This is why you think there is a contradiction.

If it is your mere belief (rather than objective fact) that a position is correct, you have no justification for arguing it whatsoever, so you are still contradicting yourself. If we assume that your credentials are correct, you do not live your life as a relativist. You use mathematical physics rather than voodoo science to solve problems, which indicates that you are not a relativist.

Similarly, since we can't prove certain things (like if the world exists independently of our senses, or whether God exists), I would say we have no reason to assume that any particular choice is the correct one.

If I don't exist, who are you talking to? Furthermore, if there is no reason to assume that any particular choice is correct, then the position that "there is no reason to assume that any particular choice is correct" also has no reason at all for why it should be accepted as valid. You are positing the same fundamental contradiction in all relativist belief systems.

In science, the choices are that the world does exist independently etc. That is the "frame of reference".

This is not what we mean by frame of reference in physics.

Have you read any philosophy of science? It certainly does use induction.

Again, science relies on deduction, not induction.

This is one of the central problems in the philosophy of science that many people work on.

The "problem" of induction is really just a problem for supernaturalists, since they believe that the identity of objects can be violated at any time by a very powerful and unpredictable supernatural force.. Induction is perfectly consistent in a materialist worldview.

You mention Popperian falsifiability, this is an example of a belief system, to be contrasted with logical positivism.

It is not a belief system in the sense that it is accepted without reason.

In response to your final comment, I would have no need to "inflate my credentials" if I wasn't continually set upon for having "a profound misunderstanding of basic physics".

No, you try to prop up your "profound misunderstandings of basic physics" by inflating your credentials. This is clear because the content of your comments do not match what the would have been had you really had the credentials you claim you have.

 

[Moridin]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

 

[drankin]

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

And group 2 has reasons to accept 2, rather than 1. Regardless, having a reason isn't a requirement.

 

[WaveJumper]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

Where in Group 1 do you see explanation as to why the universe is fine tuned to make life possible? Would turning a blind eye to something so weird and profound make the problem disappear?

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

 

[robertm]

Where in Group 1 do you see explanation as to why the universe is fine tuned to make life possible? Would turning a blind eye to something so weird and profound make the problem disappear?

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

Well, you wouldn't expect to be asking that question if the universe wasn't fit to be inhabited by humans, you wouldn't be expecting anything at all. It couldn't be any other way.

Now as to the larger question of how and why the universe is the way it is, the science of cosmology is making valiant attempts at progress. Theorization, observation, experimentation, and the development of technology is the only practicle means to answer meaningful questions.

You get nowhere by referring the question 'upward', as I think you agree.

 

[WaveJumper]

Well, you wouldn't expect to be asking that question if the universe wasn't fit to be inhabited by humans, you wouldn't be expecting anything at all. It couldn't be any other way.

That's not an explanation at all. What if a cow jumped to the Moon? Would you use this "scientific" explanation to state that - "If there wasn't a cow that could jump to the Moon, we wouldn't have been able to talk about cows jumping to the Moon". In practice, you could thus provide an "explanation" for anything, incl. winning the lottery 722 times in row, because if someone hadn't won it 722 times in a row, we wouldn't have been able to talk about it now. I am sure you wouldn't tell your boss(if you have one) that you crashed the company car because... if you hadn't crashed it, you both wouldn't be talking about it at all. Right?

You get nowhere by referring the question 'upward', as I think you agree.

Well, if 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of all events and processes in the universe can have an explanation, I'd expect the other 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% to have one as well.

 

[madness]

Moridin, I will answer each point in turn:

- I will repeat why should special mean biologically special?
- Of course it is only a belief that truth is relative, just as it is only your belief that science is not a belief system.
- I study mathematical physics as an interesting subject, that does not mean I subscribe to it religiously, I still see it as a system of beliefs. I am not critisizing science in any way, I don't think it is possible to gain any knowledge without first laying down some foundational assumptions.
- I made it clear that I was making an analogy about frames of reference in physics, of course a system of beliefs is not a frame of reference in physics.
- I will repeat: science does use induction, I gave a concrete example in my last post, here is the wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction . If you think David Hume and Bertrand Russel were "supernaturalists" then induction is a problem for supernaturalists. The problem of induction has nothing to do with the supernatural.
- Whether it is reasonable to accept something depends on your belief system, for the logical positivists falsifiability was not acceptable. It really is a belief.
- The only times I have referred to my credentials were when you said "a mathematical physicist should know this" or commented on my "profound misunderstanding". I am really not trying to inflate them. Having a knowledge of physics does not exclude me from seeing things from a different point of view.

 

[madness]

Also, why do you think that having having "reason" to accept something means it is no longer a belief? I would argue that this is precisely what makes it a belief. Copernicus has reason to accept that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. This turned out to be false. Of course this is how science progresses, but it illustrates the point that science really is a system of beliefs.

 

[turbo]

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

We study the universe and we see patterns. With the patterns, we speculate about laws, and derive "constants" so we can make sense of the patterns. If you or I ceased to exist, the universe would still do what it does, and the loss of our appreciation of the patterns and our agreement on the values of the "constants" would not matter a bit.

I do not believe that every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. Certainly, those that subscribe to anthropic arguments can make that appeal, but that hardly includes all people with an interest in cosmology. It's similar to the rationalization of something unexpected (like seeing a car with your phone number on its license plate) and after the fact wondering "Wow! what are the odds of THAT?".

 

[madness]

I've always thought the anthropic principle was a bit of a copout. In any case the question can almost be rephrased as "why is the universe exactly the way it is?", with the obvious answer "if it wasn't it would be different". I also find it strange that we assume other universes would be so incredibly similar to ours that they would have a gravitational constant and plack's constant etc.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, I will answer each point in turn:

- I will repeat why should special mean biologically special?
- Of course it is only a belief that truth is relative, just as it is only your belief that science is not a belief system.
- I study mathematical physics as an interesting subject, that does not mean I subscribe to it religiously, I still see it as a system of beliefs. I am not critisizing science in any way, I don't think it is possible to gain any knowledge without first laying down some foundational assumptions.
- I made it clear that I was making an analogy about frames of reference in physics, of course a system of beliefs is not a frame of reference in physics.
- I will repeat: science does use induction, I gave a concrete example in my last post, here is the wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction . If you think David Hume and Bertrand Russel were "supernaturalists" then induction is a problem for supernaturalists. The problem of induction has nothing to do with the supernatural.
- Whether it is reasonable to accept something depends on your belief system, for the logical positivists falsifiability was not acceptable. It really is a belief.
- The only times I have referred to my credentials were when you said "a mathematical physicist should know this" or commented on my "profound misunderstanding". I am really not trying to inflate them. Having a knowledge of physics does not exclude me from seeing things from a different point of view.

- No, you misunderstand. When I say humans are not special, I mean not special in the biological sense.
- If it is just your belief that relativism is valid, rather than an objective fact, then you of course have no justification to put forward that position at all in a rational discussion, just as you have no justification at all to put forward the proposition that "blue is the best color" in a rational discussion, because such statements are of course subjective.
- It may be your sincere belief that science uses induction, but that is not the case objectively. Objectively, science uses deduction. Evolution is of course a clear example of how deduction is used in science. The "problem" of induction is indeed only a problem for supernaturalists since they believe that powerful supernatural entities can disturb reality and violate the identity of objects at any time. The validity of induction is perfectly consistent with materialism, since materialism holds that all objects have an identity by definition and that further, objects act in accordance with their identity by definition.
- No, falsifiability is not a belief, since there are objective reasons as to why falsifiability is valid.
- The problem of course is that there is no "other [equally valid] point of view". There is only that which is true, and that which is false.

 

[Moridin]

Also, why do you think that having having "reason" to accept something means it is no longer a belief? I would argue that this is precisely what makes it a belief. Copernicus has reason to accept that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. This turned out to be false. Of course this is how science progresses, but it illustrates the point that science really is a system of beliefs.

No, science is a methodology for discovering empirical facts. A belief is just a bunch of propositions you believe, not know. Belief =/= knowledge. This is where your relativism falters.

 

[madness]

- I understand that you mean special as biologically special - my point is that humans can be considered special in other ways, such as their higher awareness and ability to ask questions about their own existence.
- All statements asserting a fact are based on some fundamental assumptions. The statement that "relativism is invalid" requires as much belief as the statement "relativism is valid.
- I agree that science uses deduction, but it also uses induction. Induction is used between observing a phenomena and asserting a "law of nature". There need not be any supernatural force to render induction invalid. I previously gave the example of dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall with the same acceleration. We therefore postulate (assume) that all masses are affected equally by gravity. If we found that masses of exactly 2.6785 kg fall twice as fast, induction would have been wrong. One might argue "induction has never led us astray in the past, so we should trust it" and this is the fundamental problem - you have to use induction to justify induction. Why should we assume that something which has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future? It is a fundamental assumption in science.
- There are not objective reasons why falsifiability is valid. We take it as a priori because it seems reasonable. The logical positivists took the opposite view, which shows that even within science there can be differing sets of beliefs.

I agree that science is a methodology - or more precisely an epistemology. Of course we need to be clear and distinguish between science as a body of knowlegde and science as the method for obtaining knowlegde here. The scientific method pertains more closely to what you said in your last post. The scientific method is really a set of beliefs about what constitutes a valid way to obtain knowlegde.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Hey, does anyone have any insight to theistic evolution(the idea that God used evolution to bring about humankind) and why or why not it really makes sense? t'would be awesome if you have some answers.

Tor

The idea is to not rely on pure science or pure theology to explain things. It is easier to picture a god as a creator, who utilizes scientific tools such as evolution. God in this case is more or less of an overseer rather than the driving force behind every little action, though some would assert that God chooses not to actively influence us despite being able to do so.

 

[Moridin]

- I understand that you mean special as biologically special - my point is that humans can be considered special in other ways, such as their higher awareness and ability to ask questions about their own existence.
- All statements asserting a fact are based on some fundamental assumptions. The statement that "relativism is invalid" requires as much belief as the statement "relativism is valid.
- I agree that science uses deduction, but it also uses induction. Induction is used between observing a phenomena and asserting a "law of nature". There need not be any supernatural force to render induction invalid. I previously gave the example of dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall with the same acceleration. We therefore postulate (assume) that all masses are affected equally by gravity. If we found that masses of exactly 2.6785 kg fall twice as fast, induction would have been wrong. One might argue "induction has never led us astray in the past, so we should trust it" and this is the fundamental problem - you have to use induction to justify induction. Why should we assume that something which has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future? It is a fundamental assumption in science.
- There are not objective reasons why falsifiability is valid. We take it as a priori because it seems reasonable. The logical positivists took the opposite view, which shows that even within science there can be differing sets of beliefs.

I agree that science is a methodology - or more precisely an epistemology. Of course we need to be clear and distinguish between science as a body of knowlegde and science as the method for obtaining knowlegde here. The scientific method pertains more closely to what you said in your last post. The scientific method is really a set of beliefs about what constitutes a valid way to obtain knowlegde.

- If not from biology, where does these "special" properties come from?
- Yes, there are objective reasons as to why falsifiability is reasonable. See Carl Sagan's dragon for description. It isn't simply assumed to be reasonable a priori
- No, there are reasons why "relativism is false" is valid, such as the internal contradictions in such as worldview. Also, just as before if everything is based on assumptions and therefore invalid, the position that everything is based on assumptions and therefore invalid is then also based on assumptions and equally invalid.
- I have already justified induction from the materialist perspective and show that induction is intrinsically invalid from a supernaturalist position. Not really sure what you are getting at here.

 

[madness]

- You are assuming everything can be reduced to biology - ie reductionism. This is not true. A more appropriate holistic examination shows we are different from other animals. Other animals. I have explained this several times.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not an objective reason. It is an argument for why we should accept it as a priori.
- There are no internal contradictions in the relativist view. Of course you see contradictions because you assume from the outset that there is an absolute set of truths. You assume the premise. I didn't say that everything was invalid because it is based on assumptions. Making fundamental assumptions is the only way forward, otherwise no progress could be made.
- You simply stated "induction is a problem for supernaturalists". I gave an explanation of why no supernatural forces are involved, and that it was David Hume (who is most certainly not a supernaturalist) who put forward the most common form of the problem. I'm not sure if you read my explanation of induction, but it didn't involve an objects identity being violated. Induction is the assumption that things will happen in the future as they have done in the past. I am not arguing that we should reject this assumption, I am just pointing out that it is an assumption which is being made.

 

[Belzy]

One could say "all of this universe is a big Von Neumann type device" created to produce life/DNA as as part of its own "life cycle". After all is it even here if we are not here to see it? We are just a fishbowl crystal garden. Doomed to a big crunch.

 

[Moridin]

- You are assuming everything can be reduced to biology - ie reductionism. This is not true. A more appropriate holistic examination shows we are different from other animals. Other animals. I have explained this several times.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not an objective reason. It is an argument for why we should accept it as a priori.
- There are no internal contradictions in the relativist view. Of course you see contradictions because you assume from the outset that there is an absolute set of truths. You assume the premise. I didn't say that everything was invalid because it is based on assumptions. Making fundamental assumptions is the only way forward, otherwise no progress could be made.
- You simply stated "induction is a problem for supernaturalists". I gave an explanation of why no supernatural forces are involved, and that it was David Hume (who is most certainly not a supernaturalist) who put forward the most common form of the problem. I'm not sure if you read my explanation of induction, but it didn't involve an objects identity being violated. Induction is the assumption that things will happen in the future as they have done in the past. I am not arguing that we should reject this assumption, I am just pointing out that it is an assumption which is being made.

- Science has proven the reductionist position and refuted holism pretty thoroughly. It may be that everything is reducible to biology yet contain (biological) emergentism. This does of course not change the fact that we are not biologically special.
- No, it is a justification for falsifiability, since he states reasons as to why falsifiability is preferable.
- No, there are contradictions within the relativist worldview since they assume that relativism is absolute, so their own worldview falls to its own deconstructionism and therefore cannot be valid.
- Yes, I have proven that the "problem of induction" is just problematic from supernaturalist worldviews do to their intrinsic uncertainty and entirely defensible within the materialist perspective, which no such uncertainty exists. I am not claiming that Hume is a supernaturalist, just that the problem he say only applies for a supernaturalist perspective with the justification I have made in several posts above.

 

[madness]

- It is utterly false that science has refuted holism. For the tenth time, biologically special isn't the only way to be special.
- Of course Carl Sagan's dragon is a justification for falsifiability. It is still not an objective reason. It justifies the belief that we should use falsifiability as a measure of truth.
- It is you who assumes absolutism, that is why you see contradictions.
- Induction is not defensible from the materialist perspective. You have not addressed any of the points I made. I cleary showed that it was an assumption which is made in science.

 

[Moridin]

- It is utterly false that science has refuted holism. For the tenth time, biologically special isn't the only way to be special.
- Of course Carl Sagan's dragon is a justification for falsifiability. It is still not an objective reason. It justifies the belief that we should use falsifiability as a measure of truth.
- It is you who assumes absolutism, that is why you see contradictions.
- Induction is not defensible from the materialist perspective. You have not addressed any of the points I made. I cleary showed that it was an assumption which is made in science.

- If science has not refuted holism, why is the core disciplines of science filled with reductionism, whereas the anti-science fringe is filled with holistic positions and practices?
- Yes, Sagan's dragon is an objective justification for falsifiability as the demarcation criteria of science. It is objective since its validity does not disappear if we all stopped believing in it.
- No, relativism undermines itself since the premises of relativism implies that the premises of relativism are suspect.
- I have proven the reliability of induction from the materialist perspective several times now. Please go back and re-read my posts. I have addressed all the so-called "points" you have made.

 

[madness]

- You advocate an emergent view of consciousness. This is a holistic theory. The apparent incompatability of reversible microphysics and the arrow of time is an example of holism. The treatment of whole systems in quantum mechanics is an example of holism. You yourself said that the observer must be treated as part of the system. The list goes on.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not objective because it is based no empirical facts. It is an a priori argument.
- Note also that falsifiabilty is not falsifiable, yet you do not reject it.
- You have not proven anything about induction. As far as I can tell you do not understand what induction is. There is no reference to the supernatural in induction. Once again you have not addressed any of my points.

 

[SixNein]

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

Diet coke version:
It's open ended, and origins will never be fully explained.

Hardcore Version:
I can construct statements in mathematics that cannot be proven. If I can construct statements that cannot be proven, I can ask questions about philosophy that have no answers.

Does God exist?

The question about existence of God is impossible to prove. Since the question is impossible to prove, many people feel there is no God; however, I can ask a simple question about mathematics that you cannot prove. Is set theory consistent? If you prove set theory to be consistent, you are inconsistent. By the same logic being used by atheist, set theory is inconsistent because it cannot be proven to be consistent.

Because something cannot be proven, it does not necessarily mean not true. The problem is undecidable, and you have to accept it one way or another on faith.

"God exists because mathematics is undoubtedly consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove the consistency" - Hermann WeylDid God use evolution?

The problem is opened ended again because of God in the statement. Can you truly visualize this number: 2i^i? Let's be honest, anything to do with infinity is very poorly understood. At best, we can say there is different sizes of infinity; however, we do not understand infinity. If you think you understand infinity, you are hopelessly lost, and you have never seen the limitations of the human mind.

Creation of the universe...

If mathematics is inexhaustible, what does that tell us about our universe? I personally view it as a hint, and I believe we know next to nothing about our universe.

I believe the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite, it does not mean it cannot expand.

 

[Hurkyl]

Lets be honest, anything to do with infinity is very poorly understood.

Only by those that understand it poorly.

 

[SixNein]

Only by those that understand it poorly.

I declare you null! =P

 

[JoeDawg]

Because something cannot be proven, it does not necessarily mean not true. The problem is undecidable, and you have to accept it one way or another on faith.

Faith is belief without evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence.

Not believing in something does not require faith.

Equivocating religious faith with evidence based belief is hugely dishonest.
They are completely different standards.

 

[SixNein]

Faith is belief without evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence.

Not believing in something does not require faith.

Equivocating religious faith with evidence based belief is hugely dishonest.
They are completely different standards.

The mathematical question was proven to be undecidable. I'm making the assumption that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God. Unless you feel you can prove or disprove the existence of God, I think it is fair to say these questions are very much alike.

I could argue that I am evidence for the existence of God; however, I would not be one step closer to proving the existence of God. I could also argue the usefulness of set theory is evidence of it's consistency; however, I would not be one step closer to proving it consistent.

 

[JoeDawg]

Unless you feel you can prove or disprove the existence of God

Its a huge mistake to imply that the existence of anything can be 'proved' or disproved.

Proof is mathematical concept, given certain premises (assumptions), one can prove things via logical constraints. But all of these things are on the level of abstraction and whether they are proved or not, your premises could be faulty, which makes your proof useless.

The word can also be used in a much looser sense with regards to matters of law and such.

Empirical science doesn't prove anything.
Science deals with observational evidence and probability.
The more non-conflicting evidence we have for a theory the more concrete that theory.

Religious faith deals with revealed truths. Belief in gods, faith, demands no evidence or logic. So you are misusing concepts.

Also, you haven't bothered to define which god you are talking about. One can very easily show via historical evidence, human psychology, and the physical sciences how self-contradicting, unsupported by the evidence, and down right nonsensical, most religious traditions are.

But people don't believe in Jesus, Allah, and Buddha based on evidence or logical proof.
They believe based on feelings, emotions, and instinctive needs. That is the essence of faith. Science and mathematics are completely different.

The standards are not the same.

 

[drizzle]

this is a logic talk about that issue by a guy called rajabali
[you can skip the religious introduction and start from about 7:10]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1dwXEV51E

 

[madness]

I disagree that not believing in something does not require faith. Remaining agnostic does not require faith but to actually assert that God does not exist does require faith. Do you then think that believing in freewill requires faith while not believing in it doesn't? I think the distinction between believing in something and not believing in it is semantic. For example consider Arabic, where instead of the verb "to be", they have the verb "to not be". Then in order to say you believe anything you have to say you don't not believe in it.

 

[JoeDawg]

I disagree that not believing in something does not require faith. Remaining agnostic does not require faith but to actually assert that God does not exist does require faith.

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, not belief.
Having faith in something means, no amount of evidence or logic would change your mind.

Do you then think that believing in freewill requires faith while not believing in it doesn't?

As long as one is willing to accept new information on a subject, its not a matter of faith. Even if one is extremely agnostic on the subject and doesn't believe knowledge of said thing is really possible. All scientific belief is tentative, even when we have huge amounts of evidence. All logic is based on premises, which are simply assumptions of one kind or another. The fact a person has confidence based on evidence or logic, is not the same as faith. If one has faith is something, the matter is closed, because it has been divinely revealed as truth.

People who compare religious faith to belief based on evidence or logic usually do so to justify their faith. Faith has no justification. You either believe or you don't.

Not believing requires no such commitment. I could 'not believe' in Jesus, simply because I have never heard of him. That is hardly the same as faith.

 

[SixNein]

Its a huge mistake to imply that the existence of anything can be 'proved' or disproved.

Proof is mathematical concept, given certain premises (assumptions), one can prove things via logical constraints. But all of these things are on the level of abstraction and whether they are proved or not, your premises could be faulty, which makes your proof useless.

The word can also be used in a much looser sense with regards to matters of law and such.

Empirical science doesn't prove anything.
Science deals with observational evidence and probability.
The more non-conflicting evidence we have for a theory the more concrete that theory.

Religious faith deals with revealed truths. Belief in gods, faith, demands no evidence or logic. So you are misusing concepts.

Also, you haven't bothered to define which god you are talking about. One can very easily show via historical evidence, human psychology, and the physical sciences how self-contradicting, unsupported by the evidence, and down right nonsensical, most religious traditions are.

But people don't believe in Jesus, Allah, and Buddha based on evidence or logical proof.
They believe based on feelings, emotions, and instinctive needs. That is the essence of faith. Science and mathematics are completely different.

The standards are not the same.

God/Jesus and Allah/Muhammad are both religions based upon Judaism. So those three religions discuss the same God. Bud is an eastern religion that I know very little about. With all of your talk about nonsense, a layman would be surprised that the ethics of modern day society is rooted in religion.

A mathematical proof is far more rigorous then physical theories. A mathematical proof has to account for every possibility. If one possibility is left out, a proof is not valid. I can also take mathematical questions and turn them into physical questions.

Proofs are used in physics as well. For example, black holes were mathematically proven to exist long before observations of them. When presented mathematical information about black holes, Einstein famously said: "Your math is right but your physics is wrong."

Question: If mathematics was to disappear, would the disappearance effect the universe?

Not believing in God requires just as much faith as believing. The question of God is undecidable. If you take a stance, you are believing a proposition.

 

[JoeDawg]

God/Jesus and Allah/Muhammad are both religions based upon Judaism.

Loosely based. They have hugely different worldviews.

So those three religions discuss the same God.

They all claim monotheism. The fact they all claim one god, doesn't mean their conception of that god is the same. Their theology can be very different.

With all of your talk about nonsense, a layman would be surprised that the ethics of modern day society is rooted in religion.

Democracy comes from pagan Greece, our modern idea of human rights, from the Enlightenment Europe, and our individualistic ideas from things like the American constitution, which advocated separation of church and state... and for very good reason.

Our ethics are rooted in our nature as social animals, our instinct for compassion, and self-preservation. Religions are an expression of our ethical beliefs.

A mathematical proof is far more rigorous then physical theories. A mathematical proof has to account for every possibility. If one possibility is left out, a proof is not valid. I can also take mathematical questions and turn them into physical questions.

And if your premises are wrong, your rigorous math is useless. Empirical data is much more useful in the day to day world.

Question: If mathematics was to disappear, would the disappearance effect the universe?

Since mathematics is a human invention, abstractions derived from observed data, and most people would say the universe has been around longer than humans... its a pretty easy question to answer.

Not believing in God requires just as much faith as believing.

Nope, really doesn't. A rock is an atheist, and so is newborn baby. They don't have any belief in gods.

 

[SixNein]

Loosely based. They have hugely different worldviews.

They all claim monotheism. The fact they all claim one god, doesn't mean their conception of that god is the same. Their theology can be very different.

They are more similar then you may think. People have a religious doctrine, but they don't typical follow it. Jesus preached endlessly about pacifism, but many Christians do not follow it; instead, they hold to a belief in force. Much of your argument is placed around a stereotype, and it is not based upon the doctrine itself. Einstein once remarked if people practiced the teachings, it could end most of the worlds social problems.

Democracy comes from pagan Greece, our modern idea of human rights, from the Enlightenment Europe, and our individualistic ideas from things like the American constitution, which advocated separation of church and state... and for very good reason.

All men were created equal? Much of the philosophical ideologies of right and wrong have roots in religion.

Our ethics are rooted in our nature as social animals, our instinct for compassion, and self-preservation. Religions are an expression of our ethical beliefs.

Instinct of compassion? Do I honestly need to explore practices of many different societies? Sparta for example?

And if your premises are wrong, your rigorous math is useless. Empirical data is much more useful in the day to day world.

If mathematics is wrong, physics is wrong; therefore, your empirical data is useless.

Since mathematics is a human invention, abstractions derived from observed data, and most people would say the universe has been around longer than humans... its a pretty easy question to answer.

I'm a realist myself.

Nope, really doesn't. A rock is an atheist, and so is newborn baby. They don't have any belief in gods.

Continuum Hypothesis, Do you believe it is true or false?

If you say false, you do so on an act of faith.
If you say true, you do so on an act of faith.
If you say don't know, you are undecided.

God Exists, do you believe this statement is true or false?

If you say false, you do so on an act of faith.
If you say true, you do so on an act of faith.
If you say don't know, you are undecided.

Faith is believing something uncertain is true or false.

 

[JoeDawg]

They are more similar then you may think.

They all claim Abraham and monotheism. That's about it for similarity.

Much of the philosophical ideologies of right and wrong have roots in religion.

Your opinion. The facts are all societies have ethics rooted in the fact we are social animals.

Instinct of compassion?

This is a social animal thing. Dogs, cats, chimps, all have this to one degree or another.

If mathematics is wrong

You are not reading what I wrote. Mathematics can be useful, but its usefulness is dependent on the validity of the premises one uses.

Faith is about believing without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
This is not science or mathematics.

 

[SixNein]

They all claim Abraham and monotheism. That's about it for similarity.

Your opinion. The facts are all societies have ethics rooted in the fact we are social animals.

This is a social animal thing. Dogs, cats, chimps, all have this to one degree or another.

You are not reading what I wrote. Mathematics can be useful, but its usefulness is dependent on the validity of the premises one uses.

Faith is about believing without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
This is not science or mathematics.

Was it ethical for Sparta to kill babies deemed unfit to be Spartans? Was it ethical for Sparta to encourage young Spartans to kill slaves as a test of manhood? How about all the countless genocides that have taken place?

Do you agree with the following?
If you say God does not exist, then you have committed an act of faith.
If you say God does exist, then you have committed an act of faith.

If you don't agree, then you are an illogical creature. =p